3 ms·

> I'm no psychologist, but it reads like they were severely traumatized by their religious zeal. You seem to have missed the part where they were fleeing the b

> I'm no psychologist, but it reads like they were severely traumatized by their religious zeal. You seem to have missed the part where they were fleeing the bolsheviks > It's somewhat comparable to those modern-day homeless that are scraping by on the streets but refuse to do anything about it. You're missing some things there too

drdaeman 2y ago
> You seem to have missed the part where they were fleeing the bolsheviks I have not. A lot of people fled from oppressive governments (myself included), but those people intentionally picked a deliberately self-harming way. And kept to it even after they certainly knew it's harming them. I think attributing self-harm to religious zeal as the primary cause is pretty obvious here. > You're missing some things there too Like what? Acting against of one's own best long-term interests because of inability to get through the short-term problems (be it religion abuse or substance abuse) is common in both situations. There are certainly myriad of differences, of course - I would not argue that the comparison is quite a stretch. (Disclaimer: this comment is not about religion, rather the focus must be put on zealotry. A non-religious belief cranked up to 11 could be equally harmful.)
- beedeebeedee 2y ago
  > Acting against of one's own best long-term interests Acting against one's best interests is based on judgment and is fundamentally subjective. You are making dubious judgments without much apparent self-reflection and missing key things (and many things you and I cannot know). Let's flip it around. You seem to be taking an "establishment" view of the world. You seem to have done well within it (I assume, you have Dr. in your name and they are very much part of the elite in western society, even if they are not the pinnacle of wealth). You don't understand why other people like this family (or "modern-day homeless") would reject what you take to be the way of world and not "act in their best interests". But what if someone recognized that our society is polluting the world and decided to no longer participate (either by fleeing, or by just dropping out and living on the streets). They are no longer producing or consuming the garbage that is polluting the planet. They could claim, as validly (and perhaps more so), that you are not acting in your best interests by continuing to participate in this destructive system. We can imagine (and even find in reality) thousands of similar arguments. I think it is good that you voiced your concerns, but I also think it would be best if you reflected on them and reconsidered your beliefs and become more skeptical and philosophical about your own judgment. >>> The only thing I'm sure is that [unregulated] religion can sometimes be such a memetic cancer > A lot of people fled from oppressive governments (myself included) > I think attributing self-harm to religious zeal as the primary cause is pretty obvious here. > the focus must be put on zealotry. A non-religious belief cranked up to 11 could be equally harmful It sounds like you may have left Iran (or other religiously affiliated oppressive regime). If that is the case, I understand how that regime would loom large in your thoughts about religion, power dynamics, suffering, etc, but be careful not to project it into places where it can obscure other considerations. Regardless, you included "modern-day homeless" in your comments, and I doubt you would say that they are driven by religious zeal.
- beedeebeedee 2y ago
  I was kind of hoping you'd respond. One look at your profile page was enough to dispel the two assumptions I made (Doctor of Iranian descent :), but that was exactly my point. There are things we can't know categorically, and there are lots of things we don't know because we are deeply limited and don't have experience with them. Regardless, we can still imagine arguments, which can lead to knowledge, and that is a much better approach than rejecting/dismissing behaviors we don't understand. For the folks who fled to the woods, they were shot at by the Bolsheviks, which you were probably not shot at- so you can't assume your experience relates to them (and the Bolsehviks murdered millions of people during and after the time they fled, which is probably very different from when you fled). Not all people who fled the Bolsheviks went into the woods (my grandfather went west eventually to America), but these people had already been leaving on the periphery of the forests, so retreating into it probably made sense to them because they already knew how to live in it (they would have probably been as bewildered trying to live in the west as my grandfather would have been trying to live in the forest). Likewise with homeless people in America- they live on the streets in the culture they know how to live. They don't retreat into the forest probably because they don't know how to survive there, and similarly probably do not know how to work as a fast food cashier, office worker, or lawyer when they have no money or housing (and all the other prerequisites for participating in the economy). My hunch is that you are blaming them for their condition when this is much better seen as a cultural, social and economic failure rather than a personal one. If entering into the economic trap of poverty is a possibility in our society, we should at least educate people how to survive- at least if we're not going to take the time to fix the obvious failings in our economy I.e., don't blame this on religious zealotry or personal failings- those traits seem largely circumstantial, in the absence of a caring and equitable society

drdaeman 2y ago

> You seem to have missed the part where they were fleeing the bolsheviks I have not. A lot of people fled from oppressive governments (myself included), but those people intentionally picked a deliberately self-harming way. And kept to it even after they certainly knew it's harming them. I think attributing self-harm to religious zeal as the primary cause is pretty obvious here. > You're missing some things there too Like what? Acting against of one's own best long-term interests because of inability to get through the short-term problems (be it religion abuse or substance abuse) is common in both situations. There are certainly myriad of differences, of course - I would not argue that the comparison is quite a stretch. (Disclaimer: this comment is not about religion, rather the focus must be put on zealotry. A non-religious belief cranked up to 11 could be equally harmful.)

beedeebeedee 2y ago
> Acting against of one's own best long-term interests Acting against one's best interests is based on judgment and is fundamentally subjective. You are making dubious judgments without much apparent self-reflection and missing key things (and many things you and I cannot know). Let's flip it around. You seem to be taking an "establishment" view of the world. You seem to have done well within it (I assume, you have Dr. in your name and they are very much part of the elite in western society, even if they are not the pinnacle of wealth). You don't understand why other people like this family (or "modern-day homeless") would reject what you take to be the way of world and not "act in their best interests". But what if someone recognized that our society is polluting the world and decided to no longer participate (either by fleeing, or by just dropping out and living on the streets). They are no longer producing or consuming the garbage that is polluting the planet. They could claim, as validly (and perhaps more so), that you are not acting in your best interests by continuing to participate in this destructive system. We can imagine (and even find in reality) thousands of similar arguments. I think it is good that you voiced your concerns, but I also think it would be best if you reflected on them and reconsidered your beliefs and become more skeptical and philosophical about your own judgment. >>> The only thing I'm sure is that [unregulated] religion can sometimes be such a memetic cancer > A lot of people fled from oppressive governments (myself included) > I think attributing self-harm to religious zeal as the primary cause is pretty obvious here. > the focus must be put on zealotry. A non-religious belief cranked up to 11 could be equally harmful It sounds like you may have left Iran (or other religiously affiliated oppressive regime). If that is the case, I understand how that regime would loom large in your thoughts about religion, power dynamics, suffering, etc, but be careful not to project it into places where it can obscure other considerations. Regardless, you included "modern-day homeless" in your comments, and I doubt you would say that they are driven by religious zeal.
beedeebeedee 2y ago
I was kind of hoping you'd respond. One look at your profile page was enough to dispel the two assumptions I made (Doctor of Iranian descent :), but that was exactly my point. There are things we can't know categorically, and there are lots of things we don't know because we are deeply limited and don't have experience with them. Regardless, we can still imagine arguments, which can lead to knowledge, and that is a much better approach than rejecting/dismissing behaviors we don't understand. For the folks who fled to the woods, they were shot at by the Bolsheviks, which you were probably not shot at- so you can't assume your experience relates to them (and the Bolsehviks murdered millions of people during and after the time they fled, which is probably very different from when you fled). Not all people who fled the Bolsheviks went into the woods (my grandfather went west eventually to America), but these people had already been leaving on the periphery of the forests, so retreating into it probably made sense to them because they already knew how to live in it (they would have probably been as bewildered trying to live in the west as my grandfather would have been trying to live in the forest). Likewise with homeless people in America- they live on the streets in the culture they know how to live. They don't retreat into the forest probably because they don't know how to survive there, and similarly probably do not know how to work as a fast food cashier, office worker, or lawyer when they have no money or housing (and all the other prerequisites for participating in the economy). My hunch is that you are blaming them for their condition when this is much better seen as a cultural, social and economic failure rather than a personal one. If entering into the economic trap of poverty is a possibility in our society, we should at least educate people how to survive- at least if we're not going to take the time to fix the obvious failings in our economy I.e., don't blame this on religious zealotry or personal failings- those traits seem largely circumstantial, in the absence of a caring and equitable society